Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols in ...

6 downloads 0 Views 206KB Size Report
Nov 26, 2007 - protocols: Fisheye, LANMAR, LAR1. Sensor networks were simulated using. Qualnet simulator. Several simulations were conducted to analyze ...
Performance Comparison of Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks Geetika Ganda1, Prachi2, Shaily Mittal3 M-tech Student, Assistant Professor, Assistant Professor Dept. of Computer Science, Dept. of Information Technology Itm University ,Gurgaon [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. This paper aims to compare performance of some routing protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks(WSNs). A Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) is a set of hundreds or thousands of micro sensor nodes that have capabilities of sensing, establishing wireless communication between each other and doing computational and processing operations. . The efficiency of sensor networks strongly depends on the routing protocol used. Routing protocols are needed to send data between sensor nodes and the base station. In this paper, we analyzed three different types of routing protocols: Fisheye, LANMAR, LAR1. Sensor networks were simulated using Qualnet simulator. Several simulations were conducted to analyze the performance of these protocols on the basis of performance metrices such as hop count, throughput , end-to-end delay. Keywords: WSNs, LANMAR, Fisheye, LAR1

1 Introduction Routing is a function in the network layer which determines the path from a source to destination for the traffic flow. WSNs routing protocols are broadly divided into two categories [2] i.e reactive(on-demand) and proactive(table-driven). In Table-driven routing protocols, each node maintains one or more tables containing routing information to every other node in the network. All the nodes update these tables so that a consistent and up-to-date network is maintained. In contrast to table-driven routing protocols, all upto-date routes are not maintained at every node; instead the routes are created as and when required. Various reactive protocols are DSR,AODV,ABR,TORA etc.LSR,OLSR, DSDV, LAR1, Fisheye, LANMAR, are proactive protocols. In this paper we have used Fisheye, LANMAR and LAR1 i.e. unicast routing protocols for their performance comparison. We have taken these protocols as these are not evaluated earlier for such comparison.

An earlier protocol performance comparison was carried out by Guangyu Pei et all in [10], who conducted experiments with Ad hoc On-Demand Vector routing (AODV), Fisheye, Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO), Source Tree Adaptive Routing (STAR) protocol, Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Bellman Ford, LandMark Ad hoc Routing protocol (LANMAR) and Location Aided Routing protocol (LAR).This simulation experiment showed that AODV, Dymo and Bellman ford protocols are having higher end to end delays than others, indicating that the speed of simulation in large scale networks will be affected, whereas LANMAR and RIP shows the considerable amount of delay in scaled up environment. Performance comparison of AODV, DSR, FSR and LANMAR is presented by M. Gerla et all in [11]. According to their simulation results LANMAR outperforms FSR under all delay and throughput measures.In the last few years, there are several researches have evaluated the performance of routing protocols for mobile Ad- Hoc network as a function of mobility rate and pause time using ns2(network simulator 2)[9] .There are lesser evaluations available using Qualnet simulator [1] which is commercially available and faster than ns2 [3]. We are using Qualnet simulator for comparison evaluation of LANMAR, LAR1 and Fisheye. DSR and DSDV were simulated and compared to a newly developed Cluster-based Routing Protocol (CBRP) by Mingliang, Tay and Long [12]. The simulations were performed with pause times from 0 to 600 seconds and with 25 to 150 mobile nodes. Their results shows CBRP performed much better with a delivery ratio always greater then 90 percent and a lower routing overhead than DSR in larger networks. An earlier protocol performance comparison was carried out by authors in [12], who conducted experiments with Destination Sequence Distance Vector (DSDV), Temporallyordered routing algorithm (TORA) along with DSR and AODV. The simulations were quite different for they used a constant network size of 50 nodes, 10 to 30 traffic sources, seven different pause times and various movement patterns on ns2 simulator. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes three concerned protocols in detail i.e. Fisheye, LANMAR and LAR1. Section 3 describes the simulation environment, parameters evaluated and simulation results. Lastly work is concluded in section 4.

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Fisheye Fisheye technique proposed by Kleinrock and Stevens [4] to reduce the size of information required to represent graphical data. The eye of a fish captures with high detail the pixels near the focal point. The detail decreases as the distance from the focal point increases Fisheye State Routing (FSR) [4] generates accurate routing decisions by

taking advantage of the global network information. Fisheye Routing determines routing decisions using a table-driven routing mechanism similar to link state.

2.2 LANMAR The Landmark Ad-hoc Routing Protocol (LANMAR) [5] combines the features of FSR and landmark routing. LANMAR assumes that the large scale ad hoc network is grouped into logical subnets in which the members have a commonality of interests and are likely to move as a “group”. LANMAR uses the notion of landmarks to keep track of such logical subnets[6].The route to a landmark is propagated throughout the network using a Distance Vector mechanism [11] The routing update exchange of LANMAR routing can be explained as follows. Each node periodically exchanges topology information with its immediate neighbors. In each update, the node sends entries within its Fisheye scope [4]. Updates from each source are sequentially numbered. To the update, the source also piggybacks a distance vector of all landmarks. As a result, each node has detailed topology information about nodes within its Fisheye scope and has a distance and routing vector to all landmarks.

2.3 LAR1 The goal of Location-Aided Routing (LAR)[7] is to reduce the routing overhead by the use of location information. LAR protocol uses the GPS (Global Positioning System) to get location information of mobile hosts. In the LAR routing technique,[8] route request and route reply packets similar to DSR and AODV are being proposed.

3 Performance Evaluation We carried out simulations on Qualnet simulator.We designed the network using Random waypoint model with different number of nodes. We compiled the results using 5 simulations and the application traffic between the randomly chosen source and destination is CBR traffic[7]. The metrics used to measure the performance of protocols are average end to end delay, average TTL based hop count and throughput. 3.1 Simulation Results 3.1.1 Average End to End Delay End-to-end delay indicates duration for a packet to travel from the CBR source to the application layer of the destination. According to results obtained in figure 1 LANMAR

shows minimum end to end delay of 0.015 s and almost remains constant irrespective of increase in no. of nodes. Similar is the case with LAR1 protocol which shows a slight higher delay in comparison with LANMAR. FSR shows worst performance with highest end to end delay of 0.023s.

3.1.2 TTL Based Average hop Count Hop count is the number of hops a packet took to reach its destination. The results for TTL based hop count in figure 1 shows three protocols have a constant hop count irrespective of the no. of nodes. With the increase of no. of nodes it remains constant. LANMAR have highest hop count of 64 hops while FSR and LAR1 require less number of hops of 19 hops and 1 hop respectively. The plotted graph shows that hop count is independent of no. of nodes. Hence, according to the results dawn, it is clear that these three protocols are independent of scalability.

3.1.3 Throughput Throughput is the average rate of successful message delivery over a communication channel. This data may be delivered over a physical or logical link, or pass through a certain network node. It is usually measured in bits per second .The results of throughput in figure 1 shows that LAR1 performs the best with the highest throughput in spite of increased no. of nodes while FSR drops down to approx. near zero.

4 Conclusion In this paper, a performance comparison of three different routing protocols i.e. FSR, LANMAR, and LAR1 for wireless sensor network is presented. Three performance metrics used to compare protocols are average end to end delay; average TTL based hop count and throughput. LANMAR performs best in measuring end to end delay and FSR performs best in TTL based hop count. LAR1 performs best in case of throughput. In future, this work may be extended for analyzing the behavior of these protocols in heterogeneous networks with many more metrics for evaluation.

References 1.

The Qualnet simulator www. Scalable-Networks.com.

Fig. 1. Simulation results of FSR, LANMAR AND LAR1

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

G. Acs and L. Buttyabv. “A taxonomy of routing protocols for wireless sensor networks,” BUTE Telecommunication department, Jan. 2007. Performance comparison of MANET routing Protocols in different network sizes by David Oliver Jorg, institute of computer Science and applied mathematics computer Networks and distributed systems University of Berne, switzerland. Design and Implementation of Fisheye Routing protocol for mobile Ad Hoc Networks by Allen C. Sun, Dept of Electrical and computer science , Massachusetts institute of Technology May 2000. Experimental Evaluation of LANMAR, a scalable Ad- Hoc routing protocol by Yeng Zhong Lee, Jason Chen, Xiaoyan Hong, Kiasin Xu, Teresa Breyer and Mario Gerla , university of California, Los Angles. IEEE communications society / WCNC 2005. G. Pei, M. Gerla and X. Hong, ”LANMAR: Landmark Routing for Large Scale Wireless Ad-Hoc Networks with Group Mobility,” in Proceedings of IEEE/ACM MobiHOC 2000, Boston, MA, Aug.2000, pp. 11-18. Performance Evaluation of Secure on-Demand Routing Protocols for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks Junaid Arshad Mohammad Ajmal Azad FAS, IIUI Pakistan FAS, IIUI Pakistan 15th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, Beijing, China. 2007 Discovering Variables that Affect MANET Protocol Performance KurkowskiS.Navidi,W. Camp,T. Air Force Inst. of Technol., Wright Patterson ; Global Telecommunications Conference, 2007. GLOBECOM '07.IEEE Publication Date: 26-30 Nov. 2007. Throughput and Delay Comparison of MANET Routing Protocols by A.Boomarani Malany 1, V.R.Sarma Dhulipala 2, and M.Chandrasekaran Int. J. Open Problems Compt. Math., Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2009ISSN 1998-6262. “Landmark Routing for Large Scale Wireless Ad Hoc Networks with Group Mobility” by Guangyu Pei, Mario Gerla and Xiaoyan Hong Computer Science Department University of California. M. Gerla, X. Hong, G. Pei, “Landmark Routing for Large Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” In Proceeding of IEEE GLOBECOM 2000, San Francisco, CA, Nov. 2000. J. Mingliang, Y. Tay, and P. Long, “A cluster-based routing protocol for mobile ad hoc networks,” 1999/2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~tayyc/cbrp/hon. J. Broch, D. A. Maltz, D. B. Johnson, Y.-C. Hu, and J. Jetcheva, “A performance comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols,” in Proceeedings of the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking(MOBICOM’98), October 1998, pp. 85–97.